Miriam Cates abuse in HoC by Lloyd Russell-Moyle

If by some miracle the little shit is sanctioned there would be a way forward to a recall petition. Just putting this out there in the unlikely event that someone in authority cares about women, children and our democracy and will hold the arsehole to account.

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05089/

Which views of hers were 'abhorrent'? The only abhorrent thing i could see was his behaviour. He wouldn't have crossed the floor and done that to a male MP.

He framed it as "I'm so passionate I couldn't stop myself", which is playing to the "decapitate TERFs" kind of gallery. It's also classic "she made me do it". It's worse than no apology.

He posted it on Twitter as well and was roundly criticised for a style of apology straight out of an abusers handbook - if only she hadn't made me so angry etc. etc.

Oops, timing!

He only apologised for his tone and the reiterated that he stood by everything he said. It wasn't an apology at all.

This is not an apology:

"On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wanted to notify the House at the earliest opportunity that I have written to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) to acknowledge that the tone of my remarks in the Chamber yesterday was a mistake. I stand by the words that I said, and I profoundly disagree with the comments that the hon. Member made, but our job as MPs is to channel passion and anger into considered debate to win our arguments—in this case, on the trans community and devolution. I recognise that I failed to control that passion during what was an emotional debate. I should have expressed my deep disagreement on what I believe is an abhorrent view in a more appropriate way. I want to particularly apologise to Madam Deputy Speaker, who had to preside over the debate."

It doesn't address how he came to the conclusion that Miriam said words that constituted "transphobia" and it doesn't address his decision to cross the floor and sit near her. We all know what going and sitting near her was intended to do because we've all experienced this kind of behaviour from men.

I agree. There was zero taking of responsibility or acknowledging that what he chose to do was entirely unacceptable.

In which other public servant roles do people get away with this kind of behaviour? Frankly in what reception class would a four year old get away with this kind of behaviour...

My assumption is the Labour leadership are hoping his resignation and 'applogy' is all they'll need. But this depends on whether Parliament/the Speaker wish for anything further - if so Labour will be forced to put out a public condemnation

He did apologise but it was an awful "she made me do it" apology the next day. I've made it clear that it was an inadequate apology in my view when I contacted the Speaker.

See the 3rd Point of Order

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-01-18/debates/19A82D1A-DEF0-4AE7-A764-30645997A602/PointsOfOrder

A lot does go on behind the scenes in parliament and there are people from all parties and concerned organisations inputting. However more input from the general public about behaviour in the house is important and if you are a Labour member, voter, have a Labour MP do get in touch. They may well ignore you but the more the merrier. Starmer is being badly advised on this but there are some around him starting to wake up.

ArabellaScott · Today 09:25

We don't know what's going on behind the scenes, to be fair.

That's true, but with something like this, a spokesperson should have made a statement, saying that they're looking into it and taking it seriously.

Great analysis. On the general thread we'd been reflecting on this, hope it is OK to C&P it there?

This is an outstanding post that deserves its own thread.

Yes, a great deal of food for thought here.

I've written too. I've commented on how his behaviour affects the public perception of Parliament as well as asking for it to be looked into further.

I've already emailed Lindsay Hoyle, cant do any harm.

I’m wondering if it’s worth contacting and asking the Speaker (through the Speaker’s office) what’s the consequences are to be, given it happened in the Commons.

To date, I don’t know for sure if Speaker Lindsay Hoyle knows what his Deputy Rosie Winterton presided over. I’d had assumed she’d give him a report, but maybe not.

It’s helpful to the Speaker for an MP’s truly atrocious behaviour to be clearly on camera like this. No ‘he said she said’. Just watch the footage, Mr Speaker.

I don’ understand why he hasn’t been reprimanded and has not apologised.

I don’t know, @Boiledbeetle, but I can see that more and more people - ordinary ones, not those in power with huge egos and who do nothing without thinking of their reputations or their SM “likes” - are speaking out about seeing how the dots join.

You can’t fail to see the whole picture now.

There's never any unconnected dots, is there? It's all there. Always.

This does seem to happen a lot, doesn't it?

But if you think about it, it shouldn't be surprising.

When a political/philosophical position is correct, fair, etc, then a lot of the people supporting it will be doing so because it's correct, fair etc. If you look at the people who support, say, gravity or public healthcare, you're going to get a healthy mix of people.

When it's as extremely incorrect and unfair as this one, then nobody will be doing so because it's correct or fair. They can only be drawn to it out of character defects or bad motivation. At best it's lack of critical thinking or authoritarian follower personality. But then there are all the darker options that it enables. You're going to get a whole bunch of bad types swimming in a sea of people not paying attention. And the people not paying attention are not going to be the most vocal, so the visible faces will have a strong likelihood of being bad types.

Now, the TRA anger at "TERFs" etc is a DARVO of that - an insistence that everyone opposing them is doing so out of character defects or bad motivation. But they've skipped the bit where they should have demonstrated their side was self-evidently the correct and fair one. It's begging the question: Why is your side right? Because the only people who oppose us are evil? Why are they evil? Because they're opposing the right side.

Although you can say something about our character - our position is correct and fair (IMO), so you've got a whole bunch of people there because of that, like gravity, but there's also a filter so that you're tending to get a cluster of personality types (arguably defects) - pedantry, anti-socialness, disagreeability - basically all the things that make you more likely to stop and notice and say something when something people are going along with isn't right.

do you think he’d have done that to another man?

I doubt it. I would encourage him though, to try doing so in a rough boozer.

Thank you for these links. The third link, to the rainbowed document, is eye opening. The paragraph on “children and sexuality” is very concerning. I wouldn’t want any adult using this “guidance” within a thousand miles of my child.